I really felt cheated by this film. I had of course heard about the fact that Eurostar had entirely funded the project, but I had also read several reviews that stated that blatant sloganeering for the company was kept to a minimum and didn't overly distract from the narrative of the film. I'm afraid I completely disagree. Although I enjoyed many elements of the story (the gentle humour and refreshingly low-key character development), the film culminates in what amounts to a blatant product endorsement for Eurostar, complete with characters waving their freshly purchased train tickets in front of the camera and a picture postcard visit to the Eiffel Tower, which you could imagine running, looped rotation-style, on a screen embedded in the back of a Eurostar recliner.
This obviously funding influenced choice in direction was doubly troubling. Firstly because it reduced the entire film to little more than a pathos-filled commercial and secondly because it betrayed the narrative of the film, substituting a ludicrously jubilant and quite improbable ending (two boys of that age and economic bracket permitted to go off on a little jaunt to Paris together? where did they get the funds? how did they find Maria? how is Tomo living and supporting himself?) in what had been to that point an enjoyable exercise in social realism.
In short, yes, a film funded in this way obviously does have an impact on the artistic decisions taken by the director. Can we really call this independent cinema? I felt duped and I'm surprised other viewers don't seem to have felt the same way.
This obviously funding influenced choice in direction was doubly troubling. Firstly because it reduced the entire film to little more than a pathos-filled commercial and secondly because it betrayed the narrative of the film, substituting a ludicrously jubilant and quite improbable ending (two boys of that age and economic bracket permitted to go off on a little jaunt to Paris together? where did they get the funds? how did they find Maria? how is Tomo living and supporting himself?) in what had been to that point an enjoyable exercise in social realism.
In short, yes, a film funded in this way obviously does have an impact on the artistic decisions taken by the director. Can we really call this independent cinema? I felt duped and I'm surprised other viewers don't seem to have felt the same way.